Yeah but objectively, in and of itself, a gun is a pretty neutral thing. There really are no objective positives about guns in general. It is a tool like any other and it's positivity or negativity is defined by its use. And for many of us who are gun owners, that could include hunting, or target shooting, or...uh...that's really about it. The vast vast majority of guns will never be used in any violent act, whether attack or defense. In fact the vast majority of guns sit in a safe or case or drawer 99% of the time. The big issue is that we have few other items, cars leap to mind, that can be destructive on the same level as a gun with just minor mis-use, whether purposeful or accidental. Cars kill way more people than guns every year, but cars also serve an objectively useful purpose when they aren't killing people. Guns just simply do not.
So to me this isn't about pointing out the positives to outweigh the negatives as that tends to be a moot point. It could be summed up in total utility of the item, adjusting for mis-use and actual objective productive usefulness, and even as a gun-owner who really enjoys my guns and used to hunt a lot and likes having one around for a minor sense of security, I can fully admit that, ceteris paribus, guns are really just novelty or luxury or hobbyist items any more in modern society, in no way shape or form useful beyond that, except as the situation dictates from outside forces. So if we had no guns, there would be no need to introduce guns, not like cars that enable the very machinery of our society and economy. Except in times of war or maybe police work, again when dealing with outside forces, there would be no use for guns beyond hobbies realistically.
So I have a hard time arguing against regulations on the basis that my hobby is more important than stopping kids from getting killed. I know it isn't that simple, but everyone tries to boil it all down to bullet points, and that is mine. We are way way past the intent of the founding father's inclusion of a "well-regulated militia" in the constitution. And the military complex is so overwhelmingly strong that there is no way a few rednecks with 100k rounds of ammo and everything painted in camo is doing anything to stop the government from, well, anything really. That argument is so old it farts dust, and has full-on dementia. I fully support the right to keep and bear arms, but there have to be reasonable limits within a reasonable society. The founding fathers even placed limits we tend to ignore in the constitution itself, "a well-regulated militia". And no, Jethro and his in-bred cousins are not a well-regulated militia no matter how much they like to play soldier and make tough videos on tiktok. So if they added in some level of restraint in the original document, further restraints to guard against an increasing swell of chaos in society is not just a good idea, it is downright critical.